Author Topic: Taxes (Read 404 times)

OZkansas · « **on:** October 12, 2003, 10:43:12 AM »

"Bush has failed America by giving tax cuts to the rich who don't need it." I keep hearing this from the democrats running for President.

My first question is how do these people know just how much, anyone or I, needs to live the American life style? And they have never answered how much is enough for each of us and does that include them? I think all of them are living a better life style then I currently am. Their clothes, suits, are much better then mine. I don't own a suit now as I can only afford denim type of clothing. So we can conclude just from a clothing aspect that my income should be increased or their income should be decreased to be "fair". Let's just say a suit cost $600 and we conclude that each of us needs one suit a month to obtain our "life style". 12X$600.00=$7,200.00/year. Let's say I buy $100 worth of jeans clothes/ month. I spend one sixth what they spend. We need to increase my income by $6,000.00 per year. As there are 10 of them they need to pay taxes of $600 per year to bring me to level the life style we all live. After they pay their fair share of taxes so I can have the suits I need to live their life style they will have $6,600.00 for clothes. Now I have $7,200.00 per year for suits. They are short $600 per year to be at my level. Where are they to get the missing $600.00 per year they need to live the life style? Somehow they will have to earn it, I guess. They shouldn’t expect me to pay taxes to bring them to my life style, right? Hmmmmmm, is it fair that they should have to earn an additional $600 per year and have that extra income taxed too? No, it's not.

Congress has kind of stated just how much each of us needs by mandating the minimum wage. But, just how many of us are willing to work for the minimum wage? I guess Congress should increase the minimum wage. I don't just know what would be fair but perhaps a minimum wage of $1,000.00 per hour would be fair. The democrats seem to think that we all are cut from the same mold, have the same talents, have the same skills, and therefore need the same amount of money. This just isn't true. Their idea of taxing the rich more because of "needs" is just plain silly when you look at it in the real world.

It seems to me that the government has a responsibility to provide an environment of a level playing field so that all can compete on that field. It's not the government's responsibility to mandate the outcome of the competition on that field!

MRPLUTO · « **Reply #1 on:** October 12, 2003, 11:33:57 AM »

Actually, OZkansas, it's not just the Democrats running for President who say this. The super-rich (Bill Gates, Sr. for example) who are getting the tax cuts are saying the same thing.

Furthermore: This is not a question of lifestyle, but of fiscal responsibility, basic fairness, and incredible greed.

Fiscal responsibility: A huge tax cut in time of war will only do exactly what is happening: the yearly deficits will go up, UP,UP, and the federal debt will skyrocket as well. Interest rates will increase as the government has to borrow more money to cover expenses. As interest rates increase, so does inflation, and growth slows dramatically. The economy goes belly up. It's like drinking: at first you feel good, but if you keep drinking you get sick. And with such huge tax cuts in wartime, we're drinking on an empty stomach.

Basic fairness: The people who are shouldering the greatest economic burden for this war & reconstruction are the poor and middle class, whose services (schools, hospitals, transportation) are suffering from budget cutbacks. How odd that the most well-off among us are getting huge tax cuts, while the small tax cuts others receive in no way make up for the reductions in goverment services.

Incredible greed: In other modern industrialized democracies the ratio between the top paid excutive and the lowest paid worker is about 20-30 to 1. In America it used to be 180-200 to 1. Now it's above that. I've read as high as 400 to 1, sometimes. I'm not a particularly materialistic person, and I keep having to remind myself that some people are so greedy they lose all respect for humanity.

*******

Finally:

You wrote: "The democrats seem to think that we all are cut from the same mold, have the same talents, have the same skills, and therefore need the same amount of money."

I have never heard a democrat suggest such things. Can you name some of the people who have suggested these ideas? Any quotes?

You also wrote: "Their [the democrats] idea of taxing the rich more because of "needs" is just plain silly..."

You're right, it is. Which is why I haven't heard many people argue the question so simplistically. I think what you've done is to create a strawman that you can then easily tear apart. Responding to the reasonable arguments people actually make is much tougher.

Another tactic you've used is taking an argument and making it absurd: "...perhaps a minimum wage of $1,000.00 per hour would be fair", you suggested not very seriously. Are you aware that the minimum wage has not even kept up with inflation over the decades, while excutive compensation has soared? That's the real issue. No one, except you, is talking about raising the minimum wage to $1,000/hr. Deal with the real issue here.

MRPLUTO

OZkansas · « **Reply #2 on:** October 12, 2003, 01:11:59 PM »

The following shows who is carrying the real burden regarding taxes:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com Then click on "Only the rich pay taxes"

I disagree that the deficit will continue to increase. I believe that the economy will heat up enough to start to reduce the deficit. The stock market is already showing signs of bullishness therefore increasing revenue via capital gains. I don¡¦t see any signs of inflation due to government borrowing either.

I don¡¦t see any reduction in the rate of spending by the Federal government that could be viewed as a reduction in services.

Am serious about the $1000.00 per hour wage. If you feel $1,000.00 isn¡¦t fair then what is fair? I feel strongly that I am worth $1000.00 per hour, I just haven¡¦t found the job in the market place that sees me as worth $1000 per hour yet.

Mr. Gates is hardly a majority. Maybe if Mr. Gates Sr. had to work for what he gets he may feel differentlyƒº

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #3 on:** October 12, 2003, 02:37:21 PM »

yawn rush again.

you quoting him to win a argument?

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 12, 2003, 03:13:40 PM »

Yawn ad hominem again.

LePaul · « **Reply #5 on:** October 12, 2003, 03:18:33 PM »

Well you know, here's a kooky idea...perhaps setup a nice fund for those who are content paying their high taxes, and wish they could pay more. Have those funds fund whatever programs are there...

Meanwhile, I'm happy with the tax break I got and used the funds to purchases an appliance I'd been needing (freezer).

If you guys have all this extra money you feel the government must have, why not toss it at charity?

They'd use it and enjoy it...not to mention use it more wisely.

MRPLUTO · « **Reply #6 on:** October 12, 2003, 07:29:46 PM »

Thanks for the Rush link...the info he provides proves my points quite conclusively.

First, let me take on what Rush says.

"Only the rich pay taxes."

Ahh, but how does Rush define "rich"? [He uses the 1999 numbers for some reason, even though the statistics go through 2000.]

"Rich" is anyone who in 2000 made more than $27,682. That is absurd. I am a teacher and fall into the 50%-25% bracket, i.e. those who make between $26,682 and $55,224. I pay thousands of dollars every year in federal taxes. I am not rich. Rush is very wrong.

Don't forget that those making less than $26,682 still pay social security taxes, which only apply to the first $35,000

or so of income, making the social security tax extremely regressive. In addition they pay state and local taxes, like sales taxes.

Next, Rush claims:

"The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts."

Wrong. The Democrats propose giving tax cuts to everyone making less than $400,000 per year. Those making more than that would not get the Bush tax cuts, increasing revenue by tens of billions of dollars.

Remember that within that upper 1% (those making more than $313,469 in 2000) there are people making tens of millions of dollars who are getting huge tax cuts.

Rush is wrong. The Dems are proposing tax cuts for the middle class.

Then Rush writes about a conversation with someone named "Misty". Maybe she exists, but this is another strawman (strawperson

?) set up argument. They talk about the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is not the issue here. "Then Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited", Rush says. Sorry, but I've never heard anyone ever, ever claim that all wealth is inherited.

Rush concludes:

"What's happening here is not that 'rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer'. The numbers prove it."

Actually, they prove just the opposite. Let's compare the figures for the top %1 and those in the 50% - 25% bracket from 1986 to 2000.

This is what the IRS data shows:

The minimum income for the top 1% went from $118,818 to $313,469, an increase of 264%. The minimum income for those in the top 50% went from $17,302 to $27,682, an increase of 160%.

Now, taxes have gone down, but who got the greater percentage cut? Those making the most money. Between 1986 and 2000, the tax rate for the top 1% went from 33.13% to 27.45%, a decrease of 17.2%. The tax rate for those making $27,682 to $55,224 went from 10.49% to 9.285%, a decrease of 11.45%.

Both of these facts show that the rich did get richer while the middle class did less well, widening the disparity in incomes. Figures for
the bottom 50% aren't here, but I've read elsewhere that their income increase was least of all. Those at the bottom actually lost income.

******

As for inflation and interest rates increasing as government borrowing increases, just give it some time, OZkansas. The Bush deficits have only just begun.

MRPLUTO

Lazerus · « **Reply #7 on:** October 12, 2003, 07:51:25 PM »

Again and again and again.................

Wasn't the tax cut the same for everyone???

A simple percentage tax cut. No muss, no fuss.

Quit looking at the dollar amount, start looking at the percentage amount. That is where it really is.

The 'rich' that the democratic party is touting to have the highest tax cut is true, but a lie at the same time. Of course they have the largest dollar amount, they pay the most. It is a percentage of what they pay.

The easiest way to end this stupid argument is located here, among other places.

Rude · « **Reply #8 on:** October 13, 2003, 09:05:45 AM »

Kinda simple really....the left believes in the re-distribution of wealth.

I prefer to KEEP what I EARN....those who really need help should get it....those who have less are not ENTITLED to have more.

Scootter · « **Reply #9 on:** October 13, 2003, 09:15:27 AM »

Who thinks the needs of all should be provided by thoes that can, and all shall contribute to the needs of everyone?

in other words

One shall provide as he can to the needs of the many and the many shall provide the needs of the one?

Who thinks this is a good idea?

why ? why not?

has it been tried?

yes I'm taking a poll

Ripsnort · « **Reply #10 on:** October 13, 2003, 09:18:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lazerus
Again and again and again.................

Wasn't the tax cut the same for everyone???

A simple percentage tax cut. No muss, no fuss.

Quit looking at the dollar amount, start looking at the percentage amount. That is where it really is.

The 'rich' that the democratic party is touting to have the highest tax cut is true, but a lie at the same time. Of course they have the largest dollar amount, they pay the most. It is a percentage of what they pay.

The easiest way to end this stupid argument is located here, among other places.

I sort of agree, since the Average Effective Income Tax Rates on Households with the Highest Incomes Have Risen Disproportionately Since 1983 The rich pay too high of taxes as it is.

MRPLUTO · « **Reply #11 on:** October 13, 2003, 09:54:54 AM »

Rude -- Guess what?! The right also believes in the redistribution of wealth!

Farm subsidies, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, tax breaks for various groups, untold economic incentives...I could go on & on...these are all forms of wealth redistribution that those on the right vote for, too.

I think it's kinda simplistic to think of only the left supporting programs that redistribute wealth.

Rip --

Look at the figures in my post above and you'll see that tax rates for the super-rich and middle class have both gone down comparing 2000 with 1986.

And a question: You said the rich pay too much in taxes. Who is "rich" and what tax rate would be fair?

MRPLUTO

MrLars · « **Reply #12 on:** October 13, 2003, 11:05:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MRPLUTO

First, let me take on what Rush says.

"Only the rich pay taxes."

[/B]

Here's a quote from Rush's college public speeking teacher:

Limbaugh lasted only a year in college. He jokes that he flunked Public Speaking. Actually, he got a “D,” his speaking teacher, Dr. Bill Stacy, told NEWSWEEK. Limbaugh’s father maneuvered him into the communications class, hoping his son would like it enough to stay in college and eventually become a lawyer. Limbaugh was more interested in riffing off the top of his head. “You need to make an outline. You need some data to support your assertions,” Stacy told young Limbaugh. “Frankly, he wouldn’t do those things.”

Just a bit of insight as to how thouraly he researches his 'positions'....no wonder he won't let anyone with a valid arguement in opposition to his views on his talk show even as a call in.

gofaster · « **Reply #13 on:** October 13, 2003, 03:06:34 PM »

Quote

In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power.

-- Tony Montana, Scarface

Rude · « **Reply #14 on:** October 13, 2003, 03:10:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MRPLUTO
Rude -- Guess what?! The right also believes in the redistribution of wealth!

Farm subsidies, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, tax breaks for various groups, untold economic incentives...I could go on & on...these are all forms of wealth redistribution that those on the right vote for, too.

I think it's kinda simplistic to think of only the left supporting programs that redistribute wealth.

Rip --

Look at the figures in my post above and you'll see that tax rates for the super-rich and middle class have both gone down comparing 2000 with 1986.

And a question: You said the rich pay too much in taxes. Who is "rich" and what tax rate would be fair?

MRPLUTO

Not speaking to social programs but rather our tax code. BTW...most often, the truth is simple.